This reminds me of a stunt that some amusement park called "Eight Flags" did years ago. While patrons were inside, enjoying the park, the employees were slapping "Eight Flags" bumper stickers on every vehicle in the lot. My parents, who kept their vehicles immaculate, were royally piffed.

WordyGrrl:This reminds me of a stunt that some amusement park called "Eight Flags" did years ago. While patrons were inside, enjoying the park, the employees were slapping "Eight Flags" bumper stickers on every vehicle in the lot. My parents, who kept their vehicles immaculate, were royally piffed.

Nobody's account was hacked, hijacked, or otherwise misused. This is just stupid people outrage because its easier to be outraged and play the victim than just admit you were too farking stupid/lazy to read what you signed up for. It was in the fine print, people. They didnt have to sign up for it; they didnt have to attend. But they did, because the allure of another fake geek girl in a Harley Quinn cosplay outfit was just too much to handle.

Dick Gozinya:Nobody's account was hacked, hijacked, or otherwise misused. This is just stupid people outrage because its easier to be outraged and play the victim than just admit you were too farking stupid/lazy to read what you signed up for. It was in the fine print, people.

Not even in the fine print. If it was a snake it would have bit them right in their stupid faces.

abhorrent1:Dick Gozinya: Nobody's account was hacked, hijacked, or otherwise misused. This is just stupid people outrage because its easier to be outraged and play the victim than just admit you were too farking stupid/lazy to read what you signed up for. It was in the fine print, people.

Not even in the fine print. If it was a snake it would have bit them right in their stupid faces.

And yet, every other service that requests these permissions manage to not post content disingenuously designed to appear as first-party non-advertising content.

There is a difference between "allowed to" and "should", especially when it comes to PR.

That permission is in pretty much every app and website that ever wants your twitter info ever. It's generally used for things like being able to autotweet when you visit a restaurant, pass a milestone in a fitness app, or beat someone's score in a game. The different is that people are generally explicitly aware of what they are getting into, they opt in a settings menu, and have to do something to make those tweets go out.

This one goes over the line for the customer relationship with the same warning that people are used to from companies who aren't quite so stupid. I'm sure that plenty of people saw the permission to send out tweets and assumed it worked the way it does with just about every other company that asks for it. The story isn't "duh, people are stupid for agreeing to this." The story is that the NYCC people are dicks.

louiedog:That permission is in pretty much every app and website that ever wants your twitter info ever. It's generally used for things like being able to autotweet when you visit a restaurant, pass a milestone in a fitness app, or beat someone's score in a game. The different is that people are generally explicitly aware of what they are getting into, they opt in a settings menu, and have to do something to make those tweets go out.

This one goes over the line for the customer relationship with the same warning that people are used to from companies who aren't quite so stupid. I'm sure that plenty of people saw the permission to send out tweets and assumed it worked the way it does with just about every other company that asks for it. The story isn't "duh, people are stupid for agreeing to this." The story is that the NYCC people are dicks.

Unfortunately it's a bad idea to give such permissions to any website or app. Just because most sites dont obviously violate your trust with those logins/social networking links does not make them trustworthy. If you give a stranger keys to your house and tell them to make themselves at home, are you really going to complain when they redecorate your house?

If the ComicCon's goal was marketing and enhancing their event's reputation, they made a terrible mistake. I feel disgust at malicious, predatory marketers, but moreso I feel pity for stupid people who knowingly give their social media permissions to third parties.

I take issue with statements like this. It makes sense on its face, but at some point we need to acknowledge that just because we don't actively pay for something doesn't mean it has no value and that we have no reasonable expectations. Notice I didn't use the word "Rights," because I think there is a clear difference. I certainly don't have much sympathy for the people who had this happen to them, but I also think it's necessary that we are upset with the company who did this and the company that gave them access with which to do it. We need to show them where the boundaries are, or they will turn us all into advertising tools even more so than they already have.

Sir_Farkalot:bugmn99: To be fair, ComicCon agreed to reimburse the attendees' Twitter fees.

I take issue with statements like this. It makes sense on its face, but at some point we need to acknowledge that just because we don't actively pay for something doesn't mean it has no value and that we have no reasonable expectations. Notice I didn't use the word "Rights," because I think there is a clear difference. I certainly don't have much sympathy for the people who had this happen to them, but I also think it's necessary that we are upset with the company who did this and the company that gave them access with which to do it. We need to show them where the boundaries are, or they will turn us all into advertising tools even more so than they already have.

This is where the boundaries are. These people were turned into advertising tools because they volunteered to be advertising tools.

Sir_Farkalot:bugmn99: To be fair, ComicCon agreed to reimburse the attendees' Twitter fees.

I take issue with statements like this. It makes sense on its face, but at some point we need to acknowledge that just because we don't actively pay for something doesn't mean it has no value and that we have no reasonable expectations. Notice I didn't use the word "Rights," because I think there is a clear difference. I certainly don't have much sympathy for the people who had this happen to them, but I also think it's necessary that we are upset with the company who did this and the company that gave them access with which to do it. We need to show them where the boundaries are, or they will turn us all into advertising tools even more so than they already have.

I lump it into the same category as people who lose their minds when FB changes things around (or Fark for that matter). If it's free, you are not the customer. You are the product being sold. If you go into the deal realizing this and accepting it, you're far less likely to be "victimized".

I used those quotes on purpose because there are no true victims here.

And here I thought Twitter was only used by people to post inane comments about unimportant things that nobody reads, argue about who Tweeted about a disaster/crisis first, and as a forum for which celebrities and famous athletes were able to humiliate themselves.Who knew it could also be used for backdoor advertising. I'm going to have to get in on this!

Lord_Dubu:WordyGrrl: This reminds me of a stunt that some amusement park called "Eight Flags" did years ago. While patrons were inside, enjoying the park, the employees were slapping "Eight Flags" bumper stickers on every vehicle in the lot. My parents, who kept their vehicles immaculate, were royally piffed.

Which inspired my short-lived business venture: Spike Bumpers Inc.

I'd buy one! Would have been real nice for that one Land Rover twat who rolled into my truck while he was texting at a stop light. No damage to my vehicle, but hard enough that I wish it had done damage to his.

Crudbucket:Sir_Farkalot: bugmn99: To be fair, ComicCon agreed to reimburse the attendees' Twitter fees.

I take issue with statements like this. It makes sense on its face, but at some point we need to acknowledge that just because we don't actively pay for something doesn't mean it has no value and that we have no reasonable expectations. Notice I didn't use the word "Rights," because I think there is a clear difference. I certainly don't have much sympathy for the people who had this happen to them, but I also think it's necessary that we are upset with the company who did this and the company that gave them access with which to do it. We need to show them where the boundaries are, or they will turn us all into advertising tools even more so than they already have.

[img.fark.net image 599x492]

This is where the boundaries are. These people were turned into advertising tools because they volunteered to be advertising tools.

Every single piece of social media turned it's users into advertising tools since MySpace and before. They're all nothing but gimmicks to get your personal information to make *someone else* money off that. Most of which go further than that and throw that information into someone else's hands. Which is why I've never done and never will do it. I don't understand people that do it. Your life isn't that damned interesting to anyone other than the people who actually see you everyday and bother to *ask* about it.

Meh. I have several accounts, which I use exclusively for development purposes - I don't use them for anything else, and I sure as hell don't share them.

The whole point of social media is to farm you for marketing purposes. That's it. Any benefit provided by such services is paid for by the benefit your use provides to them. The sad part is that this is, for many social media tools, the only way to monetize them because folks like Google constructed the "free to play" mechanism - far too many people expect free access to such things, and tend to trivialize the return generated by their activities until the loss of control or privacy directly affects them. Then, they get all whiny about it.

The question I'd ask is "when will Twitter provide a 'premium account' service that allows the account owner fine control over when & how their personal information is used?" If Twitter provided a "pay to play" version that allowed you to directly subsidize the account, in return for ironclad control over your security and privacy, would you pay for it?

Crudbucket:stewbert: Twitter needs to address this. Using your Twitter account as a general login for many sites is handy. But, doing that gives access to all those sites.

What are they going to address? That's the entire point of trying to get people to link their Twitter accounts to other sites.

Twitter might have an interest in making sure that 3rd parties aren't posting on user accounts. It might help folks like me trust them as a service.

Or not. I can continue using a throw away twitter handle. It makes it easy to have just one login for a really vast number of website accounts. @harryballsack just won't follow anyone, and likely won't have many followers, so it won't matter if comicon tweets. But, it leaves a door open for a new application to replace Twitter, by being a bit more customer focused.

stewbert:Crudbucket: stewbert: Twitter needs to address this. Using your Twitter account as a general login for many sites is handy. But, doing that gives access to all those sites.

What are they going to address? That's the entire point of trying to get people to link their Twitter accounts to other sites.

Twitter might have an interest in making sure that 3rd parties aren't posting on user accounts. It might help folks like me trust them as a service.

Or not. I can continue using a throw away twitter handle. It makes it easy to have just one login for a really vast number of website accounts. @harryballsack just won't follow anyone, and likely won't have many followers, so it won't matter if comicon tweets. But, it leaves a door open for a new application to replace Twitter, by being a bit more customer focused.

What the hell? Even if they didn't read any of the words printed very clearly on the page, what is going through a person's mind when they volunteer their Twitter password if it isn't "they are going to use this to post from, and possibly alter, my Twitter account"? I don't mean this question hypothetically or sarcastically: what did they think this information was going to be used for when they so blithely handed it over?

And to all the people who did so, would you please post your credit card information, and online banking passwords in this thread? I will use this information to take all your money. Please enter it below.

FormlessOne:The question I'd ask is "when will Twitter provide a 'premium account' service that allows the account owner fine control over when & how their personal information is used?" If Twitter provided a "pay to play" version that allowed you to directly subsidize the account, in return for ironclad control over your security and privacy, would you pay for it?